Private Spaceflight Law Shot Down

wiggles writes "MSNBC says that bill HR3752, which allows private, suborbital tourist flights, has died. We'll have to wait until next year for this one. According to the article, 'The bill would have put private-sector suborbital spaceflights on much firmer regulatory footing. It was approved overwhelmingly by the House back in March but languished in the Senate for months.'"

On the other hand...

[Lady Jazzica]

Another useful space-related bill did get passed [house.gov]:

The Senate last night passed, and sent to the President, a Science Committee bill (H.R. 5245) to extend the law under which the U.S. government insures companies that launch satellites for damages or deaths sustained by individuals who were not involved in the launch. The House had passed the bill in October by unanimous consent, and Senate approval was also by unanimous consent; the President is expected to sign it.

The bill will extend the insurance, known as indemnification, for five years, until Dec. 31, 2009. The bill, introduced by Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), would also require a study by a non-governmental entity of whether indemnification could be ended without unduly harming U.S. companies, and, if so, how that should be done.

The indemnification provisions in H.R. 5245 were originally part of a larger bill, H.R. 3752, to make additional changes to the Commercial Space Launch Act.

Under current law, which H.R. 5245 would extend, satellite launchers must buy private insurance to cover injuries to third parties. The insurance must cover losses up to the "maximum probable loss" level determined by the government. The government then indemnifies the launcher for any additional losses up to about $1.5 billion per launch, meaning the government pledges to pay any claims for the private company that exceed the amount covered by private insurance.

Re:This is nonsense

[learn fast]

"There are no laws preventing commercial space flight."

No, it's been regulated by the FAA since 1991. This bill would have just changed the regulations a bit. In any event this is still suborbital flight we're talking about.

Re:This is nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you didn't notice that half the battle for the X-Prize contestants was getting government approval to fly.

When they got approval, the gov't said "ok, you can fly, but not with paying passengers."

I agree that it should be as you say, but the U.S. isn't that free of a country anymore.

Re:Won't happen, Pentagon won't allow it

[Martin Blank]

It could potential interfere with the US military's superiority in this field, and what the Pentagon wants, it gets.

It has nothing to do with the Pentagon.

Sen Inofe from Oklahoma held it up because the definition of a suborbital rocket ("`suborbital rocket' means a rocket-propelled vehicle intended for flight on a suborbital trajectory whose thrust is greater than its lift for the majority of the powered portion of its flight") could be read to mean that Rocketplane, a venture in his state, would fall under the FAA's regulatory power and probably kill it because the FAA would treat it as a commercial craft which would be too expensive. Rocketplane's design uses jet engines for most of the flight, with rockets only for the suborbital portion. A minor wording change could fix it, something like, "`suborbital rocket' means a rocket-propelled vehicle intended for flight on a suborbital trajectory for at least a portion of its flight whose thrust is greater than its lift for the majority of the powered portion of the suborbital phase of its flight" (my alterations in italics). Even something this small takes time to make the rounds, though.

There are also concerns about requiring passengers, for now, to sign away all liability. The ventures want this -- they don't want to see their early multi-million dollar investments in what is clearly a young, risky, and dangerous venture crushed by one bad flight that results in tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits. Opponents are concerned that this will allow them to take too many risks and cavalierly treat their customers as cash sources who don't have to be paid back later on, skimping on their safety. Both sides have valid points, and both sides want to reach a middle ground, which will almost certainly happen, but with all of the other things happening in the presidential election year, it just never got moved forward fast enough.

It's still on the schedule, and will probably pass next year, if only to keep Virgin Galactic from including Virgin Atlantic flights out of the country with its ticket packages.

From a more recent article:

[FleaPlus]

If any of you vote in Minnesota, you may want to call up Jim Oberstar (D-Minn) and voice your concerns...

From here [msn.com]:

The Republican leadership tried to push the bill through by suspending the chamber's rules through a voice vote, but Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn. -- who voiced firm opposition to the bill on safety grounds -- called for a yea-and-nay breakdown and noted that a quorum was not present. That stymied the GOP's procedural maneuver, and further action was postponed.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., argued during the 40-minute debate that new legislation was needed to resolve the Federal Aviation Administration's role in regulating piloted suborbital space launches, and that the FAA would be able to step in if a spacecraft was found to be unsafe for the crew or passengers. Oberstar, on the other hand, believes that the bill is too lax in that regard, and that the FAA would have to stand by until someone is killed or gravely injured.

Rohrabacher said failure to act could drive the infant suborbital space travel industry out of the country. "Don't strangle this industry and drive these entrepreneurs offshore," he pleaded.